About the people, politics and beliefs leading us down the road to pandemonium

political convention

Thursday, July 18, 2013

What Is It About Iowa?

Two
recent decisions by higher courts in Iowa might make you wonder what judges are
drinking in that state. In the first case, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a
dentist who fired his assistant because she was too attractive had acted
legally. The dentist was afraid that he would start an affair with the woman, even
though she had worked for him for 10 years and had always acted professionally
on the job.The justices held that the
firing didn’t violate the law because it was prompted by the man's feelings rather than
illegal gender discrimination. It was earlier revealed that the Dentist’s wife
had discovered that he was sending Twitter messages to the assistant.

In
the other case (see LaughingStockNation post July 11, 2013), an Iowa appellate court
overturned the conviction of a man who beat his puppy to death with a baseball
bat for peeing on the carpet. Judges Larry J. Eisenhaur and Mary E. Tabor, who
made up the majority of the three-judge panel, concluded that the man’s
behavior didn’t rise to the level of depravity, sadism or torture required by
the law. “I have some great difficulty understanding how you can beat a puppy
to death and not have sadistic intent,” said a local attorney concerned with
animal welfare.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Is “Fairness” the Same as Accuracy?

Not In Presidential Debates or the Nightly News

The quest for the fairness in
media coverage of politics has a long and difficult history. Consider the example of the telecast of the 1980 presidential debate between Carter and Reagan.Not since Kennedy debated Nixon in 1960 had
presidential candidates met on television. But because many journalists and
scholars had noted bias in the 1960 telecasts, the Carter-Reagan debate was
carefully designed to avoid any hint of favoritism. Directors chose camera
shots and angles for visual equality rather than to simply follow the ebb and
flow of the debate.

But the plan
failed because Reagan was more active on camera than Carter. Close up shots
showing Reagan smiling were followed by identically framed shots of Carter
looking down at his notes. Carter seemed weak and disinterested. Things got
worse when the director juxtaposed longer shots of the candidates. One high
angle shot of Carter diminished his physical stature, making him look small and
insignificant compared to his opponent. The whole telecast was an exercise in
distortion.

But despite this demonstration
that mechanical evenhandedness doesn't work, television networks
continue to mold news and public affairs broadcasts to give equal weight to “both sides" of an
argument, no matter the actual substance of the different viewpoints.

Two recent examples come from
the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, the top-rated broadcast news show.
Reporting on the passage of tough new restrictions on abortion in Texas, an NBC
correspondent interviewed abortion rights advocates who said the new law would
close down a significant number of abortion and women’s health clinics thus leaving many women without important medical services. For an opposing viewpoint, the reporter interviewed a conservative senator who voted for the legislation. She
claimed that the law was not as drastic as abortion rights advocates made out. Its primary goal, she said, was to protect women's health not just to curtail abortion. On the surface, matching these two opposing
positions seemed reasonable and fair. However, there was one big problem. The
senator's statement was not true.The wording of the law and numerous
speeches by proponents, including the governor, made clear that the motive for
the legislation was ending abortion not improving women's health. Nevertheless,
the correspondent's "fair and balanced" report gave the senator's
misleading comments the same weight as the well documented arguments of abortion
supporters.

Another NBC
report discussed the battle between Democrats and Republicans over the Senate
filibuster rules. Noting that action in the Senate was frequently impeded by
animosity between the parties, the anchor announced that the two party leaders,
Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell, would appear on the
network’s Sunday interview program. He urged viewers to tune in to see the two
men who share equal responsibility for Senate grid lock.

This observation
says much about the fairness pitfall. Reid is not personally appealing and you
could easily conclude that he's a typical self-serving politician. However, he
is not in the same league as McConnell when it comes to legislative obstruction.
The number of Republican filibusters since President Obama took office (241)
has exceeded by scores the totals compiled during past administrations. In
addition, filibusters are now being used by Republicans to block cabinet and
judicial appointments not traditionally subject to filibuster. In short, the
current Republican minority is the most obstructive on record and it is an
egregious distortion to say that Reid and McConnell are equally responsible.

Though
presidential debates and everyday reporting are different in purpose and scale,
the bogus quest for fairness comes from the same undiscerning—or maybe
timid—mindset. In both cases, using elementary arithmetic to give the
appearance of fairness is a formula for distortion.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Shocking Case of Judicial Indifference

Appellate Court Frees Man WhoBeat Puppy to Death for Nervous IncontinenceAn Iowa appeals court has ruled that a man
who clubbed his 7-month-old puppy to death should not be punished under the
state’s animal cruelty law because his actions were not “depraved” or “sadistic”
as specified by the law.Testimony in the
man’s trial alleged that he was irritated by the puppy’s undisciplined
behavior and repeated “accidents” in the house. After one such occurrence the
man carried the puppy outside and returned with a bloody baseball bat and the
dead body of the animal.

A dissenting justice noted that the defendant’s behavior should
have been considered animal torture “because it was an extreme response to an
ordinary and foreseeable occurrence” and that the beating caused “severe
physical pain.”(Source: Reuters and USA Today)